Has Tim Tebow earned a roster spot on the Patriots?

[Kontradiction]

On phone and can't typt worth cap. Will respond to this and about the defense later.

There's not any need. Again, people that watched every game from the team that year and have much more of a history watching this team from 2009 on are telling you that the defense wasn't anywhere near as good as you're trying to make it out to be. We've already been down this road, you and I. Even your most ardent Tebow supporters that are actually Pats fans and have been on this forum for some time will and are disagreeing with you.

 

[fnordcircle]

He's awful--we all know this; it's not up for debate--but his fans believe that in spite of his being so awful, he DESERVES a roster spot based on his character or his fame.

Can you quote a single quote where one person has said Tebow deserved a roster spot based on his character or his fame? Thanks.

It's really easy to argue with invisible people especially when you make up the stupidest **** for them to have pretend said.

 

[Oinko]

I haven't seen too many of you guys disagreeing with his statement that the Pats defense was any good that year. Otherwise, I wouldn't have lumped the Tebow fans in together and would have simply left it at him.

And your reply highlights exactly what I'm talking about.

The Pats defense was not any good that year.

See, it's a mistake to grope for that "Tebow Nut Groupthink" like you want it to be true. Like you cherish the notion. The fact is, you just don't hear from everybody on every subject, and I think the vast majority of people would think that the Patriots game was a long time ago and it's not worth going on record about.

I reject the notion that there's some affirmative duty for any Tebow fan to correct another Tebow fan. This the internet. It's messy. People are entitled to their opinion and nobody has a monopoly on the truth. If someone wants to make their case that Patriots had a somewhat good defense (or something) that year, I've got better things to do than correct them (I guess supposedly speaking on behalf of "other Tebow fans?"). And you've got better things to do than stoke it up into some mental flaw on behalf of Tebow fans.

Tebow fans like the guy, root for him, and see things in a light most favorable to him. That's about as far as you can carry the generalization.

 

[Boogs]

I basically agree, but it isn't so much my problem with Tebow as it is the Tebowites who follow him from team to team, rooted for the jets to beat the Patriots last year, and now think they can call themselves Patriot fans and lecture us on why a player who has performed worse than any player on the roster should make the roster without having to make any case whatsoever for what he has done to deserve it. Don't worry though, if he is released next week and the Bills sign him they will be right back rooting against the Patriots week one, just as they have for the past 3 seasons.

Well there is the answer in bold. For whatever reason Ivan, you just have this huge problem with Tebow having fans. Why your feelings are hurt and you and others make up imaginary arguments in order to put Tebow fans "in their place," I have no idea. It only means more Patriot fans if Tebow happens to make the roster. If he does make it, Tebow fans here will be rooting for the Patriots to win the Superbowl this year. And all that shouldn't really be an issue.

 

[Kontradiction]

And your reply highlights exactly what I'm talking about.

The Pats defense was not any good that year.

You're the first that I've seen combat that notion, but you only did so after my posts.

See, it's a mistake to grope for that "Tebow Nut Groupthink" like you want it to be true. Like you cherish the notion.

You seem to be confusing me with Ivan. This may blow your socks off, so take a seat while I tell you, wait for it... I'm a Gator fan. I have no need to slam the Tebow fans. Further, you're committing some serious hyperbole here. Where, in any of my posts on this forum, did I accuse the Tebow fans of being "nuts"?

The fact is, you just don't hear from everybody on every subject, and I think the vast majority of people would think that the Patriots game was a long time ago and it's not worth going on record about.

You don't because nobody else aside from me and a few other people have actually combatted the notion Demo laid out that the defense was actually better than we gave it credit for that year. Also, and this is unfortunate, but you guys are going to be lumped together more often than not. It won't only happen on this forum, but it will happen on the forum of whatever team Tebow goes to after this one. That's what happens when you all register together. Don't take it personally if someone lumps you all together when he or she is arguing against one of you and the rest of you guys don't step up to combat that ridiculous and far fetched opinion.

I reject the notion that there's some affirmative duty for any Tebow fan to correct another Tebow fan.

And this is why I lumped you guys all in together. If you disagreed with his point, why didn't you voice it?

This the internet. It's messy. People are entitled to their opinion and nobody has a monopoly on the truth. If someone wants to make their case that Patriots had a somewhat good defense (or something) that year, I've got better things to do than correct them (I guess supposedly speaking on behalf of "other Tebow fans?").

Like what? You're in this thread writing a long winded reponse and accusing me of doing a few things that I didn't do, so I would assume that you have the time to correct something you disagree with. After all, isn't that the point of joining a forum?

And you've got better things to do than stoke it up into some mental flaw on behalf of Tebow fans.

More hyperbole. I never called it a mental flaw. What I did infer is that it's weak logic. Those two are not the same. Anybody who thinks that that defense was any good that year...

1. Didn't watch that many Pats games.

2. Is blind.

3. Is a HUGE homer.

4. Didn't see the following draft when the Pats went defense-heavy for good reason.

It's either one of those, or a combination of any of them. The pass defense was BRUTAL that year. Second worst all time. After that season, Belichick made some pretty wholesale changes to that side of the ball including: adding a premier pass rusher, adding a rookie LB, signing a safety to a nice-sized contract and drafting one with a second round pick, drafting another pass rusher (that hasn't worked out), and signing an interior pass rusher that lied about an injury and was off the team before the kickoff of Week 1. Do you notice the common theme there? All those moves on that side of the ball were to improve the PASS defense. Why? Because the pass defense was garbage.

 

[chumpchange]

Can you quote a single quote where one person has said Tebow deserved a roster spot based on his character or his fame? Thanks.

It's really easy to argue with invisible people especially when you make up the stupidest **** for them to have pretend said.

That tends to be the general sentiment among his fans: that his integrity is the asset to the team. Goodness knows, he certainly doesn't bring any quarterbacking skills to the table.

 

[Demosthenes]

There's not any need. Again, people that watched every game from the team that year and have much more of a history watching this team from 2009 on are telling you that the defense wasn't anywhere near as good as you're trying to make it out to be. We've already been down this road, you and I. Even your most ardent Tebow supporters that are actually Pats fans and have been on this forum for some time will and are disagreeing with you.

Well, even if there isn't a "need", I'd like to respond anyways. You are making this into a Tebow thing and quite frankly, he has nothing to do with it. Right or wrong, I "rate" defenses based on points allowed. I'd say the same thing about the Pat's defense in 2011 if they had never played the Broncos.

Here is something you said in a previous post:

The thing that the Tebow fans can't get their heads around is the fact that the Pats were good in the points allowed department only by stopping the opposing offense in the red zone. But, usually, the opposing offense would drive down the field with very little effort before the drive stalled out.

SO the Pats D did a pretty good job of stopping opposing offenses in the red zone, thereby limiting the amount of points scored by said teams. That's what you want a good defense to do.

I understand that most people don't agree with my view on this. Most people are going to run to NFL.com or some other site and look at team rankings based on yardage. Yardage doesn't win football games. Points do.

BTW, I also rate offenses the very same way. I don't care if a team puts up 500 yards. If they only manage 14 points out of it, that's not a good offense. I'd much rather have an offense that consistently puts up 300-350 yards and 28+ pts per game. Why ? Because winning football games is all about putting up more points than your opponent. It doesn't matter if they gain more yards, nor does it matter if they lead in TOP. It's about the POINTS.
'
Here's an example. In 2012, based on YPG, the Detroit Lions were the 3rd ranked offense in the league. In points per game, they were 17th. Which ranking more accurately reflects their record ?



Surely I can't be the only one around here who puts a hell of a lot more emphasis on points per game than total yardage.

 

[Demosthenes]

Let's be clear about this anyone who disagrees with you isn't smart enough to understand you, you have made that clear throughout this thread and your time in this forum, and I am pretty sure the bronco fans who disagreed with you when you were a Bronco fan were all 1st and 3rd graders too stupid to understand you as well, whereas with Jet fans it was simply a rhetorical question

Wrong yet again. Most here who disagree with me just have different opinions and view things differently than I do. That said, there are a select few here who don't come across as all that bright. I leave it to you to decide which group you fall into.

You were once again asked a very simple question, but since it doesn't fit with your worldview that Tim Tebow should not be judged by the same standards as every other pro athlete you dismiss it as a "loaded question" and cry foul.

WRONG. Your construct was flawed from the get go. You restricted consideration to ONLY what was seen in the two preseason games that Tebow played in.

Anyone with a lick of sense readily understands that roster decisions aren't going to be made solely based off of performances in preseason games. You don't have to take my word for it, Belichick has said so himself.

Tim Tebow is on the bubble and has been since he walked through that door, yet for some reason it is unfair to ask whether he should get a job over those who have outperformed him throughout camp and are also fighting for that last roster spot. Every other player in the NFL currently fighting for a job is expected to win that job through their performance, Tim Tebow should be awarded it simply for being Tim Tebow that is and has been the position of the Tebowites throughout this entire debate, and given that completely absurd position they shouldn't be questioning anyone's intellect. Asking whether he deserves it is unfair, but for some reason they are now asking whether a good performance Thursday would change our minds when his atrocious performance to date has done absolutely nothing to change theirs. Heads Timmy wins, Tails Timmy wins, if he performs horribly it doesn't make a difference, if he performs well it does. Pretty good deal for Timmy.

It's not unfair to ask the question. Rather, the WAY you have asked the question, framing it so narrowly, is what makes it a loaded or unfair question. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[chumpchange]

Wrong yet again. Most here who disagree with me just have different opinions and view things differently than I do. That said, there are a select few here who don't come across as all that bright. I leave it to you to decide which group you fall into.





WRONG. Your construct was flawed from the get go. You restricted consideration to ONLY what was seen in the two preseason games that Tebow played in.

Anyone with a lick of sense readily understands that roster decisions aren't going to be made solely based off of performances in preseason games. You don't have to take my word for it, Belichick has said so himself.







It's not unfair to ask the question. Rather, the WAY you have asked the question, framing it so narrowly, is what makes it a loaded or unfair question. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Well count me as another who can't understand how the 'framing' of this statement somehow makes it unfair. It's not a narrow, unfair question at all. It's THE most unbiased, fair question in the NFL: do you play your position well enough to be a benefit to the team. If yes, you stay; if no, you go. In Tim's case, the answer is so obvious and simple.

 

[mgteich]

The 2 worst quarterback stats in the preseason belong to Tebow and Kafka. We seem to specialize in really, really poor backup quarterbacks.

 

[Kontradiction]

Well, even if there isn't a "need", I'd like to respond anyways. You are making this into a Tebow thing and quite frankly, he has nothing to do with it. Right or wrong, I "rate" defenses based on points allowed. I'd say the same thing about the Pat's defense in 2011 if they had never played the Broncos.

Here is something you said in a previous post:



SO the Pats D did a pretty good job of stopping opposing offenses in the red zone, thereby limiting the amount of points scored by said teams. That's what you want a good defense to do.

Red zone defense alone doesn't make a team a good defense. Case in point: Miami's defense was tops in the red zone in the league last season. Would you take them over Seattle's defense? How about San Francisco's?

The fact of the matter is that there's more to evaluating a defense than just points. The order that I would put it in is this...

1. Points

2. Turnovers

3. Yards allowed

Most defenses tighten up in the red zone. That's a fact that's widely known throughout the NFL. So to give the Patriots credit for something that every defense in the NFL has a propensity to do because the field gets shorter is simply bad logic. The Patriots did decently in points allowed and turnovers that year, but too many people (such as yourself) dismiss yards because it doesn't work out in their argument's favor. But when you're gaining yards, you're moving the chains. When you're moving the chains, you're taking more time off the clock. When you're taking more time off the clock, you're keeping Brady and the Pats offense off the field. That's what happened in the Super Bowl. Brady's brilliance passing through some of the tightest windows I've ever seen kept us in the game, but in the end the Giants had simply chewed up too much clock, controlled T.O.P. and we were out of the time at the end... after our defense had just had it's hand in blowing the game. You also saw a microcosm of that in the Pittsburgh game earlier that year.

Chad Henne, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Rex Grossman, and Dan Orlovsky all put up career games against that defense. Their teams lost in the end because of the inability to stop the Pats offense. When the Pats played a team whose defense could get stops against the Pats offense (i.e. - winning teams), the Pats lost those games. In the AFCCG, they would have lost if Flacco found the open man in the end zone on one play and if Sterling Moore didn't have the play of his life on another. Why? The defense fell apart at the end of the game.

Further, again, you're ignoring everything the Pats did on that side of the ball in the 2012 draft simply because that pass defense sucked so bad. Since I don't feel like typing it out again, I'll simply copy and paste my reply to Oinko...

Anybody who thinks that that defense was any good that year...

1. Didn't watch that many Pats games.

2. Is blind.

3. Is a HUGE homer.

4. Didn't see the following draft when the Pats went defense-heavy for good reason.

It's either one of those, or a combination of any of them. The pass defense was BRUTAL that year. Second worst all time. After that season, Belichick made some pretty wholesale changes to that side of the ball including: adding a premier pass rusher, adding a rookie LB, signing a safety to a nice-sized contract and drafting one with a second round pick, drafting another pass rusher (that hasn't worked out), and signing an interior pass rusher that lied about an injury and was off the team before the kickoff of Week 1. Do you notice the common theme there? All those moves on that side of the ball were to improve the PASS defense. Why? Because the pass defense was garbage.

For you, I think the issue is that you simply didn't watch too many Pats games that year so, when Tebow became a central part of the argument and the 2011 defense was referenced, you went to NFL.com/FO/whatever and grabbed whatever good statistic you could find about the team, then used it without context. Context, my friend. It's very important.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Well there is the answer in bold. For whatever reason Ivan, you just have this huge problem with Tebow having fans. Why your feelings are hurt and you and others make up imaginary arguments in order to put Tebow fans "in their place," I have no idea. It only means more Patriot fans if Tebow happens to make the roster. If he does make it, Tebow fans here will be rooting for the Patriots to win the Superbowl this year. And all that shouldn't really be an issue.

It doesn't speak well of your character that you can be so fickle with where your loyalties lie.

 

[sb1]

Well, even if there isn't a "need", I'd like to respond anyways. You are making this into a Tebow thing and quite frankly, he has nothing to do with it.

With all due respect I highly doubt that.

Hoping, wishing, praying and desperately trying to convince yourself that the Patriots defense was good in 2011 is nothing more than an effort to create a convenient excuse for a certain QB's performance against them in the playoffs. Reality says that he crashed and burned against a gawd awful defense. Which they were. That is fact. Not opinion. Fact.

If his playoff game against the Steelers, as Tebow fans are wont to discuss...if that is a reason why the Patriots or any other team should bring him aboard, then it's only logical that his performance against a historically bad defense is a reason not to do so. Can't have it both ways.

 

[sb1]

Red zone defense alone doesn't make a team a good defense. Case in point: Miami's defense was tops in the red zone in the league last season. Would you take them over Seattle's defense? How about San Francisco's?

The fact of the matter is that there's more to evaluating a defense than just points. The order that I would put it in is this...

1. Points

2. Turnovers

3. Yards allowed

Most defenses tighten up in the red zone. That's a fact that's widely known throughout the NFL. So to give the Patriots credit for something that every defense in the NFL has a propensity to do because the field gets shorter is simply bad logic. The Patriots did decently in points allowed and turnovers that year, but too many people (such as yourself) dismiss yards because it doesn't work out in their argument's favor. But when you're gaining yards, you're moving the chains. When you're moving the chains, you're taking more time off the clock. When you're taking more time off the clock, you're keeping Brady and the Pats offense off the field. That's what happened in the Super Bowl. Brady's brilliance passing through some of the tightest windows I've ever seen kept us in the game, but in the end the Giants had simply chewed up too much clock, controlled T.O.P. and we were out of the time at the end... after our defense had just had it's hand in blowing the game. You also saw a microcosm of that in the Pittsburgh game earlier that year.

Chad Henne, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Rex Grossman, and Dan Orlovsky all put up career games against that defense. Their teams lost in the end because of the inability to stop the Pats offense. When the Pats played a team whose defense could get stops against the Pats offense (i.e. - winning teams), the Pats lost those games. In the AFCCG, they would have lost if Flacco found the open man in the end zone on one play and if Sterling Moore didn't have the play of his life on another. Why? The defense fell apart at the end of the game.

Further, again, you're ignoring everything the Pats did on that side of the ball in the 2012 draft simply because that pass defense sucked so bad. Since I don't feel like typing it out again, I'll simply copy and paste my reply to Oinko...

Anybody who thinks that that defense was any good that year...

1. Didn't watch that many Pats games.

2. Is blind.

3. Is a HUGE homer.

4. Didn't see the following draft when the Pats went defense-heavy for good reason.

It's either one of those, or a combination of any of them. The pass defense was BRUTAL that year. Second worst all time. After that season, Belichick made some pretty wholesale changes to that side of the ball including: adding a premier pass rusher, adding a rookie LB, signing a safety to a nice-sized contract and drafting one with a second round pick, drafting another pass rusher (that hasn't worked out), and signing an interior pass rusher that lied about an injury and was off the team before the kickoff of Week 1. Do you notice the common theme there? All those moves on that side of the ball were to improve the PASS defense. Why? Because the pass defense was garbage.

For you, I think the issue is that you simply didn't watch too many Pats games that year so, when Tebow became a central part of the argument and the 2011 defense was referenced, you went to NFL.com/FO/whatever and grabbed whatever good statistic you could find about the team, then used it without context. Context, my friend. It's very important.

Amen. Well said.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well count me as another who can't understand how the 'framing' of this statement somehow makes it unfair. It's not a narrow, unfair question at all. It's THE most unbiased, fair question in the NFL: do you play your position well enough to be a benefit to the team. If yes, you stay; if no, you go. In Tim's case, the answer is so obvious and simple.

The question is what the evaluations are based on. IF evaluations were based only on performance in preseason games, the answer would be no.

IF the evaluations are based off of many other things along with performance in preseason games, the answer might very well be yes.


Those things could be practice sessions, individual training sessions, class room work, or a number of other things.

Something else that has to be taken into account is what Belichick for. Does he expect a QB3 to be able to step right in and run Brady's offense ? Does he expect the QB3 to actually contribute to the team this year ? Or, does he view the QB3 position as a developmental one ?? If so, the question then becomes whether or not Tebow has made enough improvements in his game since he's been here, as well as whether or not Bill thinks those improvements will continue.

These answers aren't new. They've been stated throughout this thread and others. Yet some people keep claiming that we aren't answering the questions. Or that we can't point to anything, we just want Tebow to be on the team because he's Tebow and he deserves it.

Or you have a guy like ATippett who wants to come in and narrow the question down to ONLY looking at what Tebow did in the two preseason games to date, ignoring everything else.

 

[detpatsfan]

With all due respect I highly doubt that.

Hoping, wishing, praying and desperately trying to convince yourself that the Patriots defense was good in 2011 is nothing more than an effort to create a convenient excuse for a certain QB's performance against them in the playoffs. Reality says that he crashed and burned against a gawd awful defense. Which they were. That is fact. Not opinion. Fact.

If his playoff game against the Steelers, as Tebow fans are wont to discuss...if that is a reason why the Patriots or any other team should bring him aboard, then it's only logical that his performance against a historically bad defense is a reason not to do so. Can't have it both ways.

Tebow "crashed and burned" because Belichick came up with a good scheme. Tim Tebow has had 1 bad playoff game boo hoo. Tom and Peyton have had bad playoff games too.

 

[Boogs]

It doesn't speak well of your character that you can be so fickle with where your loyalties lie.

Can you elaborate?

 

[sb1]

Tebow "crashed and burned" because Belichick came up with a good scheme. Tim Tebow has had 1 bad playoff game boo hoo. Tom and Peyton have had bad playoff games too.

Why do you have that blasphemous picture still in your sig. Do you hate Christianity?

 

[detpatsfan]

That tends to be the general sentiment among his fans: that his integrity is the asset to the team. Goodness knows, he certainly doesn't bring any quarterbacking skills to the table.

Amazing how some qbs who don't have a .500 record in the NFL or a playoff win on their resume get overrated meanwhile Tim Tebow who has both isn't even considered an NFL qb by know-nothing haters.

 

[detpatsfan]

Why do you have that blasphemous picture still in your sig. Do you hate Christianity?

No and there is nothiing blasphemous about the New England Patriots logo otherwise I wouldn't be a Pats fan.